Reply to thread

The timing may lead people to think that way.  The announcements do not.  


The NCAA conducts drug tests before championship events and bowl games.  It's a common practice and has been for years.  You may recall Oregon had two suspended back in '15 for a failed drug test. 


When it's a NCAA test (and I'll use smoking weed here as an example) it's a rule that the school must declare the player ineligible.  There's nothing there about a suspension.  I realize we're splitting hairs here, sort of, but there is a distinct difference.  In Oregon's case their fans were complaining and suggesting the Ducks were singled out.  That wasn't the case as all four teams had the same tests. 


I realize we're dealing with semantics a bit here, but it's important to note that if this were a NCAA test, they would be ineligible for 50% of the season.  This would also carry over until next season.




There needs to be a distinction drawn between these two phrases:  "they should have been doing what they needed to do" versus "they didn't need to be doing something they knew they shouldn't."


Back
Top Bottom